News-media crisis calls for industry introspection

PETA KROST MAUNDER

PKM: How could this have been avoided?

AH: Part of it was about the work processes, and the culture and arrogance in the newsroom.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone gets things wrong, but the particular issue here is that it happened within the era of state capture, and that’s what gives it a different kind of edge. It’s not that they got the stories wrong, it’s that they admit to being played, they were susceptible to those who are playing the state capture agenda.

Recently, we were saying how incredible some journalists have been to expose corruption so courageously and effectively. And, we reminded people that that journalists helped to stop state capture. But it is clear that some, wittingly or unwittingly, helped facilitate it.

PKM: Do you think it could have been wittingly? Do you think people knew, or were they just not doing their jobs properly?

AH: There is no question in my mind – and I’ve spoken to a lot of the people involved – that for most of them, it was unwitting. They are deeply regretful that they played a role that they had no intention of playing. But, there’s a question mark over one or two people who, extraordinarily, this week have been out of the picture.

PKM: Why was it done?

AH: State capture. It’s about a deliberate attempt to seize control of institutions for personal gain. It’s about using things like fake news, to get control of institutions by forcing out good people, and replacing them with people who share your nefarious intentions. Those concerned were leaking and manipulating the information, they were trying to get rid of people who were blocking state capture in these institutions.

PKM: There must have been ways to check and double check.

AH: Yes, there’s no question that there was double checking and querying of sources, and hearing the other side. The root of this lies in the fact that newsrooms have been depleted, and therefore the personnel, machinery, resources to do more checking, are depleted.

And there’s much greater pressure to break stories, and to be first with the news, so the temptation is too great to rush to print with incomplete material.

PKM: That’s become a bigger and bigger issue because of social and online media. I know as a weekly newspaper, it can be quite devastating when we’re working on a lead, and it is broken online three days before we go to print.

AH: Exactly. Newspapers are under huge pressure to break stories, and have intense competition. We grew up in a world in which the ethic was to break the story because we could. Journalists need to rethink that ethic, because you can’t always break stories anymore. And if you get a scoop, you used to own the story for a 24-hour news cycle. You now own it for 30 seconds. If you break the story on your front page, it’s on social media in two seconds, and you don’t own it anymore. As journalists, we always have to think: what can I bring to the story that’s new and different?

PKM: It’s even more important to get it right, because once it’s out there, it’s not just in South African hands, it’s in international hands.

AH: Yes, the falsity can spread much quicker. But it’s more important to us as journalists, because we have to show that we can give what social media can’t give, which is trust and credibility, and veracity and verification. If we can’t do that, there’s no reason to have journalists, you might as well just use social media. I believe the value of journalism has gone up, because that process of selecting, editing, verifying is more valuable because we have too much information that’s unfiltered.

PKM: But when a newspaper is exposed for so many false stories, can it survive?

AH: It’s like any brand. Can Enterprise polony come back? The truth is that it’s a long, hard climb back to get it right.

PKM: I think Bongani (Siqoko, Sunday Times editor) is an excellent journalist.

AH: And he’s hugely respected, and he’s been brave. But I hope he doesn’t think this weekend’s apology can put the matter to rest. We expect everyone else to be transparent and accountable, and we somehow need to show that we apply this to ourselves too.

PKM: Just giving back money or prizes is not enough (which is what Siqoko has promised he will do).

AH: It’s an important gesture. It saves those of us who run prizes the embarrassment of having to take them back. Returning prizes, saying sorry, is a very good first step.

PKM: What should they be doing to clear their names, and win back our trust?

AH: They have to deal internally with the individuals, in some form. They have to show that individuals are also accountable, because there’s a strong feeling going around that journalists just pop up somewhere else. They have to be clear about the steps being taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. When they do those things, they can begin the long haul of showing that they remain a quality newspaper.

PKM: We’re living in an era where people are reading less and less, particularly newspapers. Are we losing readers of mainstream newspapers because we’re not delivering the goods, or is it because the era of newspapers is over?

AH: It’s not just that newspapers are losing it, but they’re failing or struggling to take their subscribers online. That’s because a fundamental strategic mistake is being made. At times, you need to spend money to hold people and to say, “Come online, because I’m going to give you material that you have to have in your life, that you can use, and that makes your life better.”

PKM: That you can’t get anywhere else.

AH: Exactly. The lesson in Europe and America is that the people who have been able to continue to spend on unique editorial, the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Economist are doing well. We’re in the hands of owners and ownership structures. That means there’s too much short-term thinking as opposed to long-term investment in building brands.

PKM: Then, there’s the problem with newsrooms.

AH: Newsrooms are mostly depleted of the older people who would have knocked the younger people into line, who would have said, “Great story, but it’s incomplete.”

PKM: Then there is fake news – literally trumped-up nonsense that people put online or on social media because they can. How as journalists do we deal with that?

AH: We have to deal with it, because it affects our standing and our credibility, and the way people see the world. And so, we have to be the filters to say, “This is fake, this is real.” We have to take fact checking up three notches. We have to learn all the techniques for spotting fake websites.

PKM: As editors, what can we do?

AH: For one thing, I think we have to slow down, and realise that there’s no longer much point in being first to print. The value of getting it right is much greater. Take a deep breath, and take time to make sure that your people get it right. We have to upskill on fact checking, fake-news checking. The other side of the technology fence is that it gives us fantastic tools to do those kinds of checks and verification. But you have to learn how to use it. We have to keep reminding ourselves that nothing is more important than credibility and trust.

PKM: It’s interesting you say that, because this morning, I woke up, it’s Monday morning, and the newspaper goes to bed on Wednesday, and we don’t have a lead. Inevitably something happens, but I thought after reading yesterday’s paper, so what if we don’t have a breaking news story?

AH: Particularly for you, because you have a captive audience.

PKM: Still, we want to be the best. We want to give our readers something new and exciting.

AH: It’s not worth sacrificing anything. The Sunday Times was competing with City Press, and it

rushed things in…

PKM: Thirty six times?

AH: That’s what makes one wonder about motive. You’re right, the rush to get to print explains one or two errors, but not so many…

PKM: But, then somehow, somebody is going to be contacting you saying, “Look, this isn’t true. This is wrong. Speak to this one or that one.” Thirty six times is a lot of mistakes.

AH: It is, and we hear people saying, “I told them, I briefed them, or I gave them the documentation.” We all know that when you’ve got a storyline, it can be hard to climb down. But, editors are there to ask, “Are you sure?”

PKM: Is there a problem in that journalists believe they’re above the law?

AH: There’s no doubt that in the case of the Sunday Times’ arrogance is at the root of the problem. It is born of the title’s success, power, and authority. Arrogance inherited from the past – because you can’t afford that kind of arrogance in the age of social media.

AH: There is also less and less a sense of journalism as public service. Thirty years ago, there was a strong sense among journalists that what we did was rooted in a public good. Because of economic and political pressures, sadly, there are only pockets now where journalists see themselves as offering a public service.

PKM: That’s who we are, the messengers of news, analysis, and information. Who are we if not that?

AH: That’s exactly right. We need to reassert that identity.

PKM: We have a duty to give people information. We are not celebrities. We are not above the law. I’ll be curious to see what the Sunday Times does now. There was always an ethic that as journalists, we didn’t write bad stories about other media.

AH: That is outdated and old-fashioned. I think the move around the world is to say that a healthy competitiveness and criticism of each other is not just desirable, it’s essential. We don’t like others calling us to account, like the state, therefore it’s good for us to call each other to account. I think this rivalry is healthy.

PKM: Yes. It keeps us to certain standard, I guess.

AH: Rather have it done by your peers than by the authorities. We have to break down this notion that journalists are not accountable. We must challenge that.

PKM: So, should these journalists be brought before the Zondo Commission?

AH: It would be a disaster to go to the Zondo or Nugent commissions. It may be inevitable, because they have to look at these things. But my view is that it will set all sorts of precedents and issues about confidentiality and sources that will make journalists very uncomfortable. Everything will get into secondary disputes about things like protecting sources. The industry – news media – needs to get together, and say, “We have a problem of credibility and trust. We’ve had an issue around state capture. The Sunday Times is one example, and not nearly the worst one. We need to examine why it happened, how we can prevent it from happening.” We should pre-empt the commissions. Say, “Look we’ll do that, but not as an internal thing. Independently.” There must be a genuine, genuinely independent third party. There has to be serious commitment. It has to be completely open to the public.

Then we should wait six months or a year to reassess and see if things have changed or been implemented, and if it is in a better position.

PKM: And go through the steps it took, who it spoke to or didn’t speak to.

AH: Without full transparency, nobody will buy it.

PKM: Watch this space. Wait and see.

AH: I’m afraid I think that Bongani’s headache has just been given a palliative.